See latest comment from Tex; we might be off the hook.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003AprJun/0020.html
[[
1) I now understand that the lowercasing of the lang identifier is
constrained
to the RDF graph.
The proposed text is a better solution as it makes the specification
explicit,
but I would find the test cases as adequate to clarify the issue.
]]
The "proposed text" was:
[[
> Note: The case normalization of language tags is part of
> the description of the abstract syntax, and implicitly the abstract
> behaviour of RDF applications. It is not intended to constrain an
> RDF implementation to actually normalize the case. Crucially, the result
> of comparing two language tags should not be sensitive to the case of
> the original input.
]]
The "test cases" were:
[[
> 1) add new test cases to reflect that
> en-US en-us and en-Us
> all mean the same thing.
> This would be easy, and unlikely to meet opposition.
]]
At the time, (a few weeks back), I had entailment tests in mind. I would
prefer *not* to require lower case lang tags in N-triples, and Dave seems
minded to oppose any graph comparison tests dressed up as parser tests.
e.g.
file1:
<a> rdfs:comment "a"@en-us .
file2:
<a> rdfs:comment "a"@en-us .
file3:
<a> rdfs:comment "a"@en-US .
Tests:
file1 entails file2
file2 entails file3
file3 entails file1
So Yet another tex-01 proposal is:
***
We resolve tex-01 by:
- adding the note above to concepts
- adding the test cases above to the test suite
***
I am happy with any of the three proposals I have now made, this third is
pretty much like the first:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Mar/0152.html
but the note is shorter.
Jeremy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Beckett [mailto:dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk]
> I already asked the WG to stick with canonicalizing the lang tags
> values to 1 form. I don't care what it is, as long as it is one way.
> Anything else makes simple RDF applications harder.
>